We crave simple answers. Politics, media, and marketing exploit it. Here’s why nuance is hard and how to practice it without getting played.
Everywhere we look, we’re encouraged to choose a side.
Headlines. Social feeds. Political conversations. We seem to be left with a stark binary choice. Left or right. Capitalist or socialist. Patriot or traitor. The demand is clear: choose your camp. And you better want to go all the way with it.
There seems to be barely any room for sitting somewhere in between. You may pose a question, but be ready to get looks from either side and the tensions rise. 
I felt this tension most recently after Charlie Kirk’s death. The online reactions from people I follow and many of whom I deeply respect were strikingly different. Some mourned, some condemned, some stayed quiet. And almost instantly, the media and public conversation demanded sides: saint or sinner, grieve or gloat. But what if it was more complicated than that?
Black-and-white thinking feels safe, but it’s a trap that is also heavily exploited and monetized by politics, the media, and marketing. While we are not be able to control how it attempts to shape our behavior, we can for sure detect and resist it.
Why Our Brains Crave Black and White
Psychologists have long studied our craving for simple answers. Daniel Kahneman, Nobel laureate and author of Thinking, Fast and Slow, describes how our brains rely on two systems: System 1 (fast, instinctive, emotional) and System 2 (slow, effortful, analytical). Under pressure, we default to System 1 — quick judgments that soothe uncertainty (Scientific American).
In terms of evolution, this makes sense. Making quick binary choices — friend or foe, fight or flee — kept us alive. Psychologists Arie Kruglanski and Donna Webster call this the need for cognitive closure: the desire for firm answers and discomfort with ambiguity. When stressed, tired, or under time pressure, we “seize” on the first explanation and “freeze” before considering alternatives (Springer).
There’s a neurochemical side to this too. Certainty releases dopamine — the brain’s reward signal. Uncertainty, on the other hand, activates the amygdala, the brain’s fear center. This is why ambiguity feels like danger, even when no threat exists.
And there’s the human pull and desire for belonging. Taking a clear side signals loyalty to a group, which feels protective and like we are covered by a wider community. We’re tribal animals, and black-and-white thinking makes that tribalism easier and the line to belonging more accessible.
The truth, I’ve come to realize, almost always lives in the grey.
The Discomfort of the Grey
Grey space makes us uneasy. Research shows that when ambiguity rises, so does our stress and anxiety (PMC). Moderation, in polarized times, is often mistaken for weakness or as being spineless. Standing in the middle can make you feel exposed, distrusted by both camps.
And it’s not just about politics or media. Black-and-white thinking flattens how we see people. We want heroes spotless and villains irredeemable. But humans are messy and many things can be true at once.
Take Martin Luther King Jr., a moral giant who reshaped America’s conscience, but also a man who had extramarital affairs. For many, holding those truths together can feel contradictory. Does his human failing erase his legacy, or can we accept both at once?
Or Abraham Lincoln, a figure celebrated for ending slavery, yet early in his career he expressed views that were prejudiced and limited. He didn’t always have his stance from the start. He learned, he allowed himself to change his mind, and he evolved.
“Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better” – Maya Angelou
And today, consider Elon Musk. He’s hailed as a visionary driving electric cars and space exploration, yet also criticized for erratic behavior, reckless statements, and choices that damage and influence mass groups of people who have less power under him. People idolize him as a genius or dismiss him as dangerous. But the truth is he is both.
The lesson is uncomfortable but real: people are complex. We are complex. When we demand purity, we deny imperfection and erase the possibility of transformation. The grey isn’t just uncomfortable. It’s where truth and growth live.
How Power Exploits Our Instincts
If black-and-white thinking is a human tendency, it’s also profoundly profitable. Politics, media, and business have all learned to exploit and monetize it.
In Politics
The U.S. two-party system thrives on binaries. “You’re either with us or against us.” Every issue gets flattened: citizens vs. aliens, Christians vs. non-Christians, elite coastal vs. Middle America. It’s not new — the Roman Empire mastered divide et impera, the art of dividing enemies to maintain power (Wikipedia). The tactic works because it simplifies complexity into clean sides prescribing a clear enemy to fight.
In Media
We know that outrage pays. Algorithms amplify what keeps us reacting and scrolling and what keeps us scrolling is outrage and a sense of righteousness. Studies show that biased algorithms and clickbait headlines drive engagement by presenting stories in black-and-white terms (University of Kansas) (Oxford University Press). Nuance doesn’t trend; certainty does.
In Marketing
As someone in the world of brand and marketing, we see this every day. Belonging sells. You’re either a Coke person or a Pepsi person, an Apple loyalist or an Android skeptic. Even DEI, a deeply complex effort to build fairness into flawed systems, gets framed as “right” or “wrong.”
Rarely do we ask the harder question: how do we optimize imperfect systems instead of pretending perfection exists?
When attention is the currency, extremes are optimal route to transactions.
Divide and Rule: A Historical Pattern
History is littered with examples of divide-and-rule. Philip II of Macedon coined it. Rome proved it works. The British Empire institutionalized it. After the 1857 uprising in India, the British deliberately deepened divides between Hindus and Muslims to prevent future unity (source).
In Rwanda, Belgian colonizers hardened ethnic divisions between Hutu and Tutsi, a fracture that would later fuel genocide. Nazi Germany relied on propaganda that pitted groups against each other while consolidating power at the top.
Even U.S. politics has echoes of this strategy. Lyndon B. Johnson reportedly said, “If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket.” Division distracts from the real power dynamics: wealth flowing upward while the public fights laterally.
And in the 20th century, the Cold War framed the entire world as a binary: capitalism vs. communism, freedom vs. oppression. Billions of people were flattened into two camps, and nuance was treated as betrayal or “conspiracy theorist.”
Why Division Is Useful to the Powerful
This is why black-and-white thinking persists: it works for those in charge.
When people are divided, they’re easier to control. When they’re outraged, they’re easier to manipulate. And when they’re locked into binary camps, they don’t notice the deeper issues — inequality, corporate consolidation, systemic rot.
Psychologist Arie Kruglanski’s work shows how this plays out. Under stress, people with a high need for closure are more attracted to authoritarian leaders and simple narratives (Cambridge). His Significance Quest Theory explains why people flock to extreme movements: they seek meaning, narrative, and a validating network. Extremism, in other words, feeds on the very instinct we all share the craving for simplicity and being in the right.
Extremity works because it offers closure in a chaotic world. They promise simple villains and clear answers. Nuance is slow and requires patience. Power counts on our impatience.
So what can we do about it?
If black-and-white thinking is instinctive and exploited, what can we do? The answer isn’t to deny the instinct, but to discipline it.
Here’s a framework we can use:
Add to that a few guardrail questions:
1. Spot the Sell.
Is this framing forcing me into a binary? Who benefits if I accept it?
2. Stretch the spectrum.
What truths might live in the middle? What data could change my mind?
3. Source and sequence.
Have I sought out an opposing perspective? Did I read it first, or only after I’d already frozen on my view?
And build the structure to accommodate your critical thinking: follow a few credible voices outside your bubble. Read from what is seemingly contradicting or opposing views. Let yourself sit in not having a final thought. Delay your certainty.
Practicing nuance takes a lot of effort. It actively works against our nature and how our brains are wired. It’s a daily disciple and commitment.
Certainty soothes and makes us feel “safe.” That’s why it’s so tempting to the individual and so profitable for corporations and leaders. But certainty also narrows and locks us into camps, pits us against each other, and blinds us to deeper truths.
The truth is harder. The truth is messier. The truth can be many contradicting things at once. Because life isn’t lived in extremes. It’s lived in color, in spectrum, in the uncomfortable grey where truth and growth reside.
